In group communications theory, there are labeling terms for each contributing member of the group, and how the group interacts among one another - the result is group communication. These contributing factors of situation, goals, roles, norms, and cohesiveness make up the constellation of variables. The film 12 Angry Men depicts the constellation of variables. In the film, twelve jurors in a hot room, forced to deliberate the fate of a man accused of murder. The group comes together in an uncomfortable environment and when one of twelve jurors stands against the group, voting not-guilty for reasonable doubt, there is immediate hostility. The situation is there has to be a unanimous vote as to whether the accused man is innocent or guilty of murdering his father. The goal becomes at first to convince one juror that the accused man is guilty – to which after hours of deliberation, the goal is then flipped where 11 believe the man is innocent and 1 believes he is guilty.

Individual goals are goals separate from those which the group needs to achieve together. They are for selfish reasons, a hidden agenda. One juror’s individual goal is he had bought tickets to a baseball game that evening. Another either owned or managed three car washes and wanted to get back to work – he was also extremely racist and wanted to condemn the man to death simply due to his race. Another juror was biased because of his personal life – he saw the accused man as his own son, who he believes is ungrateful and shameful. These selfish purposes set them apart from the other jurors from trying to unanimously reach a decision – it made them distracted and biased in their decision making. They just wanted to leave, to get it over with without giving much thought.

Then there is the role of Devil’s Advocate – the person who argues the other point of view which goes against group think. In the film, the devil’s advocate is played by an older man,...

YOU MAY ALSO FIND THESE DOCUMENTS HELPFUL

...Karina Verano Pd. 2B
12AngryMen
1. Which characters base their decisions on prejudice?
Juror number 4 based his decision based on the fact that the boy on trial grew up in the slum. Juror number 4 said, “He was born in a slum. The slum is a breeding ground for criminals. I know it and so do you. It’s no secret that children from slum backgrounds are menaces to society.” While Juror number ten just doesn’t like the boy bases on his race. Throughout the entire movie, he referred to the boy as them.
2. Does Juror #8, or any other character, exercise “reverse discrimination?
Juror number eight did not exercise reverse discrimination. But juror number 9 did. He favored the old man and made all the other jurors believe that he was just an old man and he just wanted attention. He compared him to himself and convinced the others to give him sympathy.
3. Should this trial have been a hung jury? why/ why not?
In my opinion, I think that this trial should have been a hung jury. I just wasn’t convinced that jurors numbers one, seven and twelve were honest on their vote towards the end. Even juror number seven changed his vote because he said that no one wanted to change their minds sometime during the middle.
4. What are the most persuasive pieces of evidence in favor of the defense? or prosecution?
The most persuasive pieces in favor of the defense was that the old man wouldn’t have taken fifteen seconds to get to his front...

...TWELVE ANGRYMEN – QUOTES
P1. ‘It now becomes your duty to separate the facts from the fancy’. (Judge)
‘I urge you to deliberate honestly and thoughtfully’. (Judge)
‘If, however, there is no reasonable doubt –then you must, in good conscience, find the accused guilty’. (Judge)
‘Your verdict must be unanimous’. (Judge)
P3. ‘..Even when the case is as obvious as this one. I mean, did you ever hear so much talk about nothing?’ (Juror 3)
‘Everybody deserves a fair trial. Sometimes I think we’d be better off if we took these tough kids and slapped ‘em down before they make any trouble.’ (Juror 3)
P4. ‘Goddam waste of time’. (Juror 7)
P7. ‘Boy-oh-boy! There’s always one.’ (Juror 10)
‘..We’re talking about someone’s life here. I mean, we can’t decide in five minutes. Suppose we’re wrong ?’ (Juror 8)
P8. ‘He’s had a pretty terrible sixteen years. I think maybe we owe him a few words. That’s all.’ (Juror 10)
P9. ‘I mean nobody proved otherwise’. (Juror 2)
‘Nobody has to prove otherwise. The burden of proof is on the prosecution.’ (Juror 8)
P10. ‘She’s one of ‘Them’ too, isn’t she? ‘ (Juror 8 )
‘What’s he so wise about.’ (Juror 10)
P12. ‘Slums are breeding grounds for criminals’. (Juror 4)
‘The kids that crawl outta those places are real trash. I don’t want any part of them.’ (Juror 10)
‘I’ve lived in slums all my life. I nurse that trash in Harlem Hospital six nights a week.’ (Juror 5)
‘There is something personal.’ (Juror...

...In his article, “The Necessary Art of Persuasion”, Jay Conger stated that persuasion is NOT about selling or convincing; rather, it is a learning and negotiating process. Good persuaders use and listen to ongoing and active discussions (or debates) to learn about their audience and include different opinions into a shared conclusion. In the movie “12AngryMen”, juror number 8 (Henry Fonda) was not sure if evidence presented against a young defendant in court left reasonable doubt for a guilty conviction. The other jurors believed the presented facts and the defendant’s background warrants a guilty conviction. The movie showed how juror number 8 persuasively got the other jurors to review each fact logically, which led to an unanimous not guilty decision. Conger noted four essential steps use in effective persuasion. The steps will be use to analyze juror number 8 persuasion approach.
The first essential step is establishing credibility with an audience. Conger noted that persuaders, to get support for an idea, have to build trust and confidence with their audience. A person can be persuasive by having a thorough knowledge and understanding of a subject matter OR relationships with people who trust the person’s motives. This is an important first step because people are allowing the persuader to persuade them and are committing time and resources towards the idea. Trust is essential. An audience needs to see and know...

...12AngryMen Summary Fucking hot in the room…say something about the environment Coach -sets the stage for the negotiation by assigning seats based on juror number -said “you fellas can handle this any way you want to, im not going to make any rules”…he should have assumed more of a leadership role from the start -showed signs of becoming a good mediator by redirecting Advertising man’s attention back to the discussion. But then, he said to HF “and we might be able to show you were you were mixed up.” -Coach offered to hand control to GO after GO called Coach a kid…caused a confrontation should have separated people from problem. Took shit too personally -did nothing when Ad man and MSO played TTT…gave up leadership role to HF -changed his vote @ same time as Ad Man after knife angle argument Mild-Mannered Bank Clerk Had no good reason for guilty vote. “I just think he’s guilty.” -changed his vote to NG during the formal vote -finally asserted himself with argument of knife argument. He’s good at dodging personal attacks Message Service Owner -Tried to form alliance with Mild Mannered Bank Clerk -stated facts from trial -whipped out the picture of his 22 yr old kid. Kid ran away from fight and MSO embarassed. Vowed to make a man out of him. This shows interests other than the trial at hand. Revenge? -was playing tictactoe with Ad Man during discussion of L train…not playing by -after demonstration of old man...

...Dear Mr. Reginald Rose,
After viewing and reading the various versions of your play, 12AngryMen, I believe that there is room to state that it is a ‘timeless’ play. After being written in 1955, it was re-created at least a further three times at different stages in history with extremely minor differences.
The attention to detail that you have included in 12AngryMen makes your play timeless. Through the themes, characters, language and structure of the play, viewers and or readers are able to connect with it and make it an accessible text to a wider audience.
Some of the themes are generalised in the play and the movie. The constant mentioning of ‘they’ or ‘them’ reflects this. By only mentioning ‘them’ or ‘they’ the prejudiced comments can be adapted to the point in time it is viewed or read, a very clever technique that you used. In my opinion, if a particular ethnic group had been mentioned that was specific to the period it was written in, the play would lose its relevance within perhaps a decade or so.
Another theme that resonates with the reader and or viewer is the theme of ‘justice’. Seeking justice in an ever developing world will always resonate with a reader and or viewer, and is a topic that 12AngryMen is based around. There are 12 very different men in one room, each bringing their own...

...Text Response Practice Sac: English Unit 3, Outcome 1
Topic 2: In Twelve AngryMen, does Reginald Rose reassure or undermine the audience’s faith in the jury system as a means of achieving justice?
The 1950’s is a period recognised through history for many different aspects, both positive and negative. In Reginald Rose’s play, Twelve AngryMen, the flaws in the judicial system are depicted throughout examples of: discrimination against race, personal prejudice, peer pressure and reasonable doubt. These factors are all aimed to undermine the audience’s faith in the jury system as a means of achieving justice; the quality to be righteous and lawful.
During a time when the Civil Rights movement was on the cuff of being established, a number of Americans’s still had the belief that they had authority over other races, resulting in racial discrimination. The racist and prejudice opinions showcased from Juror Ten, factors into his decision for voting ‘guilty’ against the accused boy who happens to be an immigrant, despite taking the facts into consideration. “They’re violent, they’re vicious...they will cut us up” “I say get him before his kind get us.” (Pg 65). During an aggressive outburst, Juror Ten repeatedly refers to all immigrants as ‘they’, separating the boy from himself, as he does not believe the boy deserves to be classified at the same level of humanity. Rose depicts the underlining notion of racial...

...
Twelve angrymen
Juror 8 and 5 are the two jurors that I would be comparing in this article because they both belong to the professional working sector (juror 5 is a nurse while juror 8 is an architect) and while they were both very confident on where the stood at the beginning they were also willing to be convinced by others that their judgement was wrong. They were also very quiet men, what one would call listeners (although it is safe to say that they were quiet for different reasons), they never got upset except when they were personally insulted.
‘Twelve angrymen’ is about a jury’s deliberations in a capital murder case. An eighteen-year-old boy had supposedly killed his father and they were supposed to come to a unanimous vote of either guilty or not guilty. If declared guilty it would mean an automatic death sentence for the young man. The case at first seemed like open and shut case because they had subconsciously declared him guilty; he had a very weak alibi, the murder weapon was similar to one he had bought and was now missing in a very dubious circumstance. Several witnesses saw him fleeing from the scene and had also said they heard angry shouts from the apartment. Eleven of the twelve jurors declared him guilty as soon as they came together in the room except one man who felt that they had come to that decision to quickly, that they should at least discuss the issue...

...﻿
“12AngryMen”
The movie “12AngryMen” takes place in a room within a courthouse where 12men that have been selected for jury duty must decide the fate of a murder suspect. The group of men is made up of a diverse ethnic and social background which plays an important part in their decisions throughout the movie. In regards to Tuckman’s stages, the group introduce themselves to each other while acknowledging their purpose as jurors. After a lengthy trial they are finally able to talk openly with each other about the case. At this point the men sit in order of their juror number from one to 12 as directed by the jury foreman around the tables made available for them; this is the first stage of the group’s development.
Stage two and three occurs when a juror then questions the leadership of juror number one and why he is the foreman. The foreman proceeds to acknowledge the valid complaint of the juror and offers the leadership position to him or any other juror that wants to be in charge. The juror that questioned the validity of the position recants and chooses to drop the issue and proceed with the task at hand. The foreman is the only individual of the group with any discernible status among the group; yet as a whole the 12men are equals in the decision making...